2E vs. 3.x The Final Showdown

[Tren]

I think getting the recent spat of 2E v. 3.x discussions out of other threads seems like a good idea. So without further adieu

--In this corner we have "Feats are baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!"

--and his opponent tonight "2E is an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules!"

Lets get ready to rumble!!!!

[Azerian Kelimon]

Let's call That Guy or the Gunslinger and have all those annoying threads locked!

Closest thing to DM fiat in RL ever.

[Catch]

What are we arguing, exactly? Breakability? Fun factor? Learning curve?

2nd Edition is just awkward. It's a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason. I haven't yet heard a good explanation for why it's at all preferable other than "ZOMG 3e IS OVERPOWDERED!"

[Tren]

I'd rather just see certain members of the forum be a little more civil in their discussion, but if not at least get it out of other threads and not risk having otherwise civil conversations locked.

Anyway, one particular argument I've heard against 3.x is that Feats somehow allow a player to break the skill system and discourages role-playing, though I don't think I've seen anything in the way of a example of this.

[Rex Blunder]

I tried, but I couldn't love 2e, although I liked the fact that you could buy a blunderbuss and a water clock. There was something about the books that reminded me of school textbooks. Maybe it was the glossy paper, or the smell of the ink.

So in summary, my well-considered opinion is "2e SMELLS"

[Reel On, Love]

I tried, but I couldn't love 2e, although I liked the fact that you could buy a blunderbuss and a water clock. There was something about the books that reminded me of school textbooks. Maybe it was the glossy paper, or the smell of the ink.

So in summary, my well-considered opinion is "2e SMELLS"

You're in luck!

[Azerian Kelimon]

In all honesty, 2ed. was slightly more balanced, because spells didn't net you so many win buttons (And yes, some feats are TOO cheesy. A good example would be Power attack, which has been shown to be tremendously abusable, though that's actually feat selections as a whole, not a single feat), and full fighters were quite more useful when ToBless, specially if you allowed grandmaster specialization. But it was also a lot more boring, particularly since you REALLY had no choice but "I hit it again/I turn invisible and sneak it again/etc.", and some things, like racial level caps, were plain idiotic.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

I like both systems. 2nd edition's advantage comes from simplicity of play, and it feels lighter. 3rd edition encourages a huge Meta-game, and while thats good in some ways, it can be very, very tiresome in others.

[Reel On, Love]

In all honesty, 2ed. was slightly more balanced, because spells didn't net you so many win buttons (And yes, some feats are TOO cheesy. A good example would be Power attack, which has been shown to be tremendously abusable, though that's actually feat selections as a whole, not a single feat), and full fighters were quite more useful when ToBless, specially if you allowed grandmaster specialization. But it was also a lot more boring, particularly since you REALLY had no choice but "I hit it again/I turn invisible and sneak it again/etc.", and some things, like racial level caps, were plain idiotic.

2nd edition was not more balanced. Full fighter were far more useful, yes, but look at a level 1 mage.

Between things like dart-specialized fighters, Bladesingers, Fighter 2 dual-classed into Thief, and just crappy stats vs. good stats that got you XP bonuses, 2e didn't even have a semblance of balance.

And, oh, yeah--Power Attack isn't "abuseable", it's needed to keep up damage-wise.

[Thane of Fife]

2nd Edition is just awkward. It's a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason.

Oh no, we have to use addition and subtraction. How will we survive?

And besides, 3rd Edition lost all the risks of 2nd. Of course wizards are over-powered no - none of their spells have significant drawbacks.

Gate went from aging a couple years and needing to risk death to losing a handful of xp. Haste lost its enormous risks. Limited Wish and Wish lost their aging dangers in favor of minor xp losses.

Dangers were decreased as well. Now it's pretty easy to get resurrected - all you need is the cash. No longer do you need to find a cleric who's willing to risk death, and who will need to rest for days afterwards. Nope, now you can bring people back from the dead in combat, and they can just go back to fighting.

No longer are undead fearsome adversaries - their level-drain's been nerfed. No longer do you need to worry about just being hit by them - now you get a bunch of chances to save. Gee, how frightening.

I just had this argument (from the 3rd edition side) over at a 2e website. I like them both.

[Reel On, Love]

Oh no, we have to use addition and subtraction. How will we survive?

No, forget Thac0. You had to look everything up on a table. Saving throws? Table. Oh, and the saves--why were there so many of them, again?

And besides, 3rd Edition lost all the risks of 2nd. Of course wizards are over-powered no - none of their spells have significant drawbacks.

Gate went from aging a couple years and needing to risk death to losing a handful of xp. Haste lost its enormous risks. Limited Wish and Wish lost their aging dangers in favor of minor xp losses.

"Oh, no, this spell ages me. Fortunately, as an elf--since humans are so much worse than the other races anyway--I don't really freakin' care."

Dangers were decreased as well. Now it's pretty easy to get resurrected - all you need is the cash. No longer do you need to find a cleric who's willing to risk death, and who will need to rest for days afterwards. Nope, now you can bring people back from the dead in combat, and they can just go back to fighting.

No longer are undead fearsome adversaries - their level-drain's been nerfed. No longer do you need to worry about just being hit by them - now you get a bunch of chances to save. Gee, how frightening.

I just had this argument (from the 3rd edition side) over at a 2e website. I like them both.

And yet, 3.5 somehow manages to have TPKs. It's just less stupid about it: honestly, system shock rolls? "I cast Haste. You have 11 con. Roll percentiles; under 25 and you're dead."

Players dying a lot all over the place isn't a good thing, since they can't play while the character's dead.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Love, I've to disagree. First off, a wizard being weak at low levels is, in fact, SOMEWHAT balanced. They always dominated the high levels, and quite afew times they did the mids, but in 2 ed, at least you couldn't grease people to oblivion.


Yeah, the things you mention are very broken ('cept the bonus for high stats, that was stupid period), but, for a comp, I answer: Shocktrooper builds, 64 attack Swordsages, anything that involves an optimized Avalanche of Blades, and aaaaaaallllll those 7 class builds. To quote the Lead (Yes, Lead. No typo) Zeppelin, The Song Remains The Same, only the musicians have changed.

[Zincorium]

I liked 2nd edition while I was playing it. I also liked 3.x despite it's similar number of, but different, flaws.

I think DMs are the key here. Those DMs who routinely houserule everything anyway may feel less encumbered but 2nd edition than 3rd, as everyone ignores 70-80% of those rules anyway (who actually used the 'damage type versus armor type' table in a normal game? Or told players they had to stop leveling up because they were something other than humans?). A good DM who is like this can present a very nice game that I'd still be willing to join in.

On the other hand, the 3.x rules are easier for casual games, where you haven't had months to prepare and just want to get a game going with an hour or so of prep and are willing to deal with the majority of the rules as-is.

So, yeah, 2nd edition wins if it's a planescape, dark sun, or kick-arse homebrew. Otherwise, I prefer 3.x.


Just on a side note, ever notice that despite the idea that any race can be any class, they almost never deviate much from the assigned classes in 2nd ed? Halfling clerics and dwarven wizards are about as rare now as when they had to be specifically allowed by the DM.

[Reel On, Love]

Love, I've to disagree. First off, a wizard being weak at low levels is, in fact, SOMEWHAT balanced. They always dominated the high levels, and quite afew times they did the mids, but in 2 ed, at least you couldn't grease people to oblivion.

Screw "somewhat balanced". A level one wizard has 1d4 HP, and ONE SPELL per day out of a couple that he didn't even pick himself. That is the antithesis of fun.
Bard fireballs were better anyway. And then there's the difference between being a level 10 wizard and, like, a level 9 fighter/8 wizard multiclass. And then at high levels the wizard suddenly started destroying things.
"Suck horribly now and be ridiculous later" is crappy game design. Far worse than "be decent now and be ridiculous later".

Yeah, the things you mention are very broken ('cept the bonus for high stats, that was stupid period), but, for a comp, I answer: Shocktrooper builds, 64 attack Swordsages, anything that involves an optimized Avalanche of Blades, and aaaaaaallllll those 7 class builds. To quote the Lead (Yes, Lead. No typo) Zeppelin, The Song Remains The Same, only the musicians have changed.

I'm not suggesting that 3.5 is well-balanced. It's obviously not.
I'm suggesting that 2E isn't, either.

[tainsouvra]

I played 2E for a while, and got a decent number of books and such. Our group thought it was ok as-is, if somewhat awkward. Then we started house-ruling to make things run smoother, and kept going until it was a game we were happy with. The final result was disturbingly similar to 3E in several ways...so while, for our group, 2E was workable, making it so basically turned it into a differently-flavored 3E anyway.

[Rex Blunder]

Just on a side note, ever notice that despite the idea that any race can be any class, they almost never deviate much from the assigned classes in 2nd ed? Halfling clerics and dwarven wizards are about as rare now as when they had to be specifically allowed by the DM.

Yeah, making something non-optimal seems to have about the same effect as forbidding it.

[Azerian Kelimon]

True dat, Zincorium. We just grew accustomed to the famous stereotypes (humans being almost anything not build around powergaming that is exotic, elves being good archers, halflings being kleptomaniacs), but I'm not complainin'. It also helps stop idiots who want to play half orc sorcs, so, as long as half orc sorcs aren't goin' around, I'm okay.

[SpiderKoopa]

As a player who was part of the whole, "Never gonna update to 3.x, never!" and then got a good DM for it and enjoyed it, I'm going to agree with DM makes the game more than the edition.
I'm currently in a 2E campaign playing a bugbear invoker (long story), and you know? It's a lot of fun. Thallis has to be one of my favorite characters I've ever made.
I'm about to play a 3.5 gestalt game. Sorc/fav soul. Also seems like it'll tremendously fun. Same DM and all.

You know? I'll have my thac0 and my feats too as long as it's with a good DM.

[DivineBriliance]

in 3e Wizards suck at low levels but rock after mid levels. They make up for being so good by being not so good at first. Until you get fireball, its magic missle and charm person...

By the way i made a low to no con cleric who owned! thats because when he sacrificed con to get more dex , and he has such a freaking high ac that no one his level could touch him. that was level 6.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I think getting the recent spat of 2E v. 3.x discussions out of other threads seems like a good idea. So without further adieu

--In this corner we have "Feats are baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!"

--and his opponent tonight "2E is an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules!"

Lets get ready to rumble!!!!

I will concede that for most campaign settings, 2E is an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules. Forgotten Realms 2nd edition was awful, and it definitely improved in 3e. Grayhawk had very few rules and as such was fine in both editions.

However.

The rules for Planescape and Ravenloft were far from contrived or unnecessary. The fact that the feat system and other re-organizations have totally obliterated both Campaign Settings has kept me from 3e permanently. The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system.

Divine Brilliance your example is a perfect example of why I hate 3e.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh, this is fun. Nearly every argument people make against either edition also applies to the other!

* Powers from 2E are also baby eating game breakers that kill role-playing!
* 3E is likewise an unnecessarily contrived hodge-podge of nonsensical rules! (heal by drowning, anyone?)
* 3E is also a game that is difficult to play and for no good reason - no RPG on the market needs more errata and explanatory pages than this one
* 2E is also ZOMG OVERPOWDERED! - very few RPGs have anything resembling the power of a 20th-level wizard, even in 2E.
* in 3E, you can also buy a blunderbuss and a water clock.
* I'm sure somebody will find that 3E reminds him of school, or that it smells of something.

Et cetera.

Next match: in one corner, we have pot. In the other, we have kettle...

[Dhavaer]

Yeah, making something non-optimal seems to have about the same effect as forbidding it.

Funny that you see so many more elf wizards than dwarf wizards, then.

[Thane of Fife]

A level one wizard has 1d4 HP, and ONE SPELL per day out of a couple that he didn't even pick himself. That is the antithesis of fun.

Random spells isn't even one out of the three options given in the DMG, which are player picks, DM picks, and DM and player pick together. If you don't like how your DM did it, complain about him, not the system.

"Oh, no, this spell ages me. Fortunately, as an elf--since humans are so much worse than the other races anyway--I don't really freakin' care."

Except that if you fail a System Shock roll, you die. I'd care about that.

Bard fireballs were better anyway.

In what way? Bard fireballs are exactly the same as wizard fireballs.

You had to look everything up on a table. Saving throws? Table.

What's wrong with tables? Asides from which, there really aren't that many that are important. Turn Undead and Saves are the only ones which might need to be regularly checked, and one could easily record his saves on his character sheet anyway.

Yeah, making something non-optimal seems to have about the same effect as forbidding it.

That's strange; I recall having plenty of human characters in my 2e games.

Players dying a lot all over the place isn't a good thing, since they can't play while the character's dead.

Being more dangerous doesn't lead to more people dying; it leads to more people playing carefully and, to an extent, intelligently (I am not arguing that nobody plays intelligently in 3rd edition, so please don't say that I am.)

[Porthos]

I have played under 1E, 2E (Pre and Post Players Options) and 3E, and you know what the main difference between 2E and 3E was?

Frustration.

In 2E you had downright silly rules (level/class/race limits), annoying rules (system shock), and non-fun rules (spheres). Throw in the Spiral of Death (Every time you die, you lose Con), THAC0, and "Wait, do I want a High Roll or a Low Roll"? and you get... well let's just say I thank my lucky stars that 3E was created.

Now is 3E perfect? Of course not, no RPG is. But I've seen just as many people powergame 2E as they did 3E. Did they powergame differently? Of course. But it was just as easy to break 2E as it was to break 3E. The main reason there is so much "breakage" in 3E is that, as near as I can tell, there have been far more "crunch" books put out on 3Es watch than were out under 2E. But when you add in all of the settings that were running around under 2Es watch, then you could get just as much breakage as you find now.

Speaking of setting, I will say that the one single place, for me at any rate, that 2E was superior to 3E was all of the different settings. 3E, with the sole exception of Eberron really hasn't done much in the way of campaign settings. And I actually like a lot of the settings in 2E. But that's probably because I'm a Planescape player, so I'm biased.

[tainsouvra]

The fact that 3e had to be revised into 3.5, and is now going to be "replaced" by 4th edition, all these changes in less than 8 years, is just sickening to me, and shows the complete and utter weakness of the 3e game system.

Actually I would readily chalk that one up to the standard operating procedure of WotC. Check out their other product lines, it's the same kind of deal.

[Porthos]

One other thing:

The great thing about 3E is it is HIGHLY modular. If you see something that you like from FR or Eberron, or some fluff book, it is trivial to strip away the fluff and deposit it in your home campaign. In 2e that was.... less so. Much less, actually. While it could be done, trying to mix and match ideas and rules from different campaigns and kits was... problematic at best.

But in 3E (with its laser-like focus on the mathematical underpinnings of d20) it is much much easier to strip things away from source material and plop it in your game. In a way, this is also 3Es biggest curse as this very modularity has lead to many of the cries of "unbalanced" gaming. But even with that the sheer ease of mix-n-matching makes up for whatever game balance issues might arise from said mixing.

Especially since you can always ban obnoxious combos from your table.

[Porthos]

Actually I would readily chalk that one up to the standard operating procedure of WotC. Check out their other product lines, it's the same kind of deal.

And I would say find me a RPG that doesn't radically overhaul it's rule set every few years.

HINT: You can't find many.

Eight years is a looooooong time to have a ruleset. Heck, even five years (which will be the time between 3.5 and 4E) is a fairly decent amount of mileage.

[Kizara]

Random spells isn't even one out of the three options given in the DMG, which are player picks, DM picks, and DM and player pick together. If you don't like how your DM did it, complain about him, not the system.



Except that if you fail a System Shock roll, you die. I'd care about that.



In what way? Bard fireballs are exactly the same as wizard fireballs.



What's wrong with tables? Asides from which, there really aren't that many that are important. Turn Undead and Saves are the only ones which might need to be regularly checked, and one could easily record his saves on his character sheet anyway.



That's strange; I recall having plenty of human characters in my 2e games.



Being more dangerous doesn't lead to more people dying; it leads to more people playing carefully and, to an extent, intelligently (I am not arguing that nobody plays intelligently in 3rd edition, so please don't say that I am.)

Minor point: bards dont actually get the fireball spell, so I dont know what that poster is refering to.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Maybe he confused fireballs with skull traps?

[Swordguy]

I like both systems. 2nd edition's advantage comes from simplicity of play, and it feels lighter. 3rd edition encourages a huge Meta-game, and while thats good in some ways, it can be very, very tiresome in others.

Dear LORD yes.

My favorite thing about 2E is that most of the really horribly complicated or table-intensive stuff is optional. People complain about having to consult tables for saves, but forget that those saves are generally written down on a sheet of paper you're using for reference - which is a good habit to get into no matter WHAT game you're playing. I can make a 2E game very, very simple, or massively complex, or house-rule the living crap out of it and it still ticks along - which occasionally broken in places (see also: dart-specialized Fighters), but those broken things just seemed to be a lot less common and easy to pull off in actual gameplay as the broken things seem to be in 3.x.

No, here's a point. I very much ENJOY limitations on a PC. Having actual penalties for death, or something that says you can't reasonably get better than this made, in my opinion, a more satisfying roleplaying experience. The harder the deck is stacked against you, the more satisfying the win, and if you don't win - well, it's an opportunity to try out another character concept. That's the thing I hate most about 3.x. Anyone can do or be anything. That leads to people playing Warforged half-vampire half-celestial half-wraith dwarven wizards who kill everything without ever doing a single hitpoint of damage (note: this sentence contains hyperbole - if you nitpick the previous sentence for 100% gameplay accuracy, you probably are the type of gamer I'm making fun of). In removing the limits that characters had upon them, they opened up the field to insanely complex character builds that actively encourage min-maxing on the player level, and simultaneously encouraged "codex creep" at the corporate level in order to get gamers to buy more books (buy the ToB to get your melee characters up to near-par with the casters!).

What the hell is wrong with playing an ordinary elf ranger, human wizard, or dwarf fighter anyway? There was a thread a little while back about someone wanting to play a melee type. The consensus was to play a half-giant psychic warrior/something/something. Why a half-giant? The stats were better. In 2E, playing a half-giant was a pretty serious thing, and (at least in most group I've been in or heard of) something subject to a severe case of dm approval and frowning in your general direction over trying to break the game. A half-giant ought to be a MAJOR question over whether you can roleplay that character or not - and it shouldn't just be assumed that you can (to say nothing of being entitled to!) play it.

3.x. Simply too permissive. It lets you do whatever you want to it and doesn't - or is incapable of - saying no. Really, it's the coke-addled slut of RPGs.